Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

[Thermal]

It's kind of horrifying that you're able to state it that weakly. The police should always assume the burden of taking control, and do it appropriately. Many, if not all, of these utterly unjustifiable killings stem from the incompetence to do so of the officers on the scene. They then use lethal force to resolve a situation they themselves have created.

Dave

I think it's kind of horrifying that you'd find it horrifying. I mean, cops are people. I'm a people. They are not my Nazi overlords, and we should be able to work things out like adults, within certain parameters.

The whole idea of cowing before the police is revolting to me. They should not willingly be treated like jackboot thugs. If you willingly give them that power, they will take it, and some will abuse it. I absolutely do not want them to have absolute control.

 

[jimbob]

I think it's kind of horrifying that you'd find it horrifying. I mean, cops are people. I'm a people. They are not my Nazi overlords, and we should be able to work things out like adults, within certain parameters.

The whole idea of cowing before the police is revolting to me. They should not willingly be treated like jackboot thugs. If you willingly give them that power, they will take it, and some will abuse it. I absolutely do not want them to have absolute control.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Dave Rogers was meaning.

But that the cops are the ones who are supposed to be trained, the ones who signed up for the job, the ones with the drawn guns in these cases. Adequate training must include managing members of the public who might be confused or panicking because nobody has [ETA, previously] pointed a loaded pistol at them.

Instead we have the supposed experts giving contradictory or unclear orders, and shooting innocent people when they fail to obey all of them. The most positive interpretation of such shootings is when the cops allowed themselves to panic and they were incompetent. Something that should be weeded out before they are given guns and sent to interact with the public.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think it's kind of horrifying that you'd find it horrifying. I mean, cops are people. I'm a people. They are not my Nazi overlords, and we should be able to work things out like adults, within certain parameters.

I've seen good police work close up, mercifully rarely, and what it involves is taking charge of the situation with the minimum of force and coercion necessary. The relationship between the police and the citizen is never a completely equal one because the police have the right and duty to maintain order, and to restore it when it's disrupted. What that means is that, if for any reason the police need to detain someone, they should do so competently, and should take charge in an orderly manner. If you feel it's sometimes appropriate to tell the police how to do their job, then your policing system is already broken, and if this is compounded by a belief on the part of the police that deadly force is appropriate to repair the situation, then yes, that's horrifying.

Dave

 

[Aridas]

It's kind of horrifying that you're able to state it that weakly. The police should always assume the burden of taking control, and do it appropriately. Many, if not all, of these utterly unjustifiable killings stem from the incompetence to do so of the officers on the scene. They then use lethal force to resolve a situation they themselves have created.

Dave

Unfortunately, that's extremely difficult to believe, much of the time. Certainly, quite a few can be passed off as incompetence, but far too many police killings are probably better treated as the result of malice. When there are literally multiple police gangs that pointedly and intentionally engage in murdering the innocent that have been found in just one city (and lie like frickin' crazy, of course), for example, that's a pretty good indicator that an all too substantial portion of utterly unjustifiable killings aren't actually due to incompetence, even where incompetence may be claimed to try to defend them.

 

[Darat]

Unfortunately, that's extremely difficult to believe, much of the time. Certainly, quite a few can be passed off as incompetence, but far too many police killings are probably better treated as the result of malice. When there are literally multiple police gangs that pointedly and intentionally engage in murdering the innocent that have been found in just one city (and lie like frickin' crazy, of course), for example, that's a pretty good indicator that an all too substantial portion of utterly unjustifiable killings aren't actually due to incompetence, even where incompetence may be claimed to try to defend them.

And that is the appropriate label - we know some even wear gang identification symbols.

 

[jimbob]

Unfortunately, that's extremely difficult to believe, much of the time. Certainly, quite a few can be passed off as incompetence, but far too many police killings are probably better treated as the result of malice. When there are literally multiple police gangs that pointedly and intentionally engage in murdering the innocent that have been found in just one city (and lie like frickin' crazy, of course), for example, that's a pretty good indicator that an all too substantial portion of utterly unjustifiable killings aren't actually due to incompetence, even where incompetence may be claimed to try to defend them.

Yup, that's what I was alluding to with the highlighted

I'm pretty sure that's not what Dave Rogers was meaning.

But that the cops are the ones who are supposed to be trained, the ones who signed up for the job, the ones with the drawn guns in these cases. Adequate training must include managing members of the public who might be confused or panicking because nobody has [ETA, previously] pointed a loaded pistol at them.

Instead we have the supposed experts giving contradictory or unclear orders, and shooting innocent people when they fail to obey all of them. The most positive interpretation of such shootings is when the cops allowed themselves to panic and they were incompetent. Something that should be weeded out before they are given guns and sent to interact with the public.

 

[bruto]

I think it's kind of horrifying that you'd find it horrifying. I mean, cops are people. I'm a people. They are not my Nazi overlords, and we should be able to work things out like adults, within certain parameters.

The whole idea of cowing before the police is revolting to me. They should not willingly be treated like jackboot thugs. If you willingly give them that power, they will take it, and some will abuse it. I absolutely do not want them to have absolute control.

Yes, it is revolting, and you're right in theory. But in the mean time, they do have that control, that power, and the guns to enforce it. They ought, then, to be both trained and restrained not to make a bloody mess of it.

 

[Thermal]

I've seen good police work close up, mercifully rarely, and what it involves is taking charge of the situation with the minimum of force and coercion necessary. The relationship between the police and the citizen is never a completely equal one because the police have the right and duty to maintain order, and to restore it when it's disrupted. What that means is that, if for any reason the police need to detain someone, they should do so competently, and should take charge in an orderly manner. If you feel it's sometimes appropriate to tell the police how to do their job, then your policing system is already broken, and if this is compounded by a belief on the part of the police that deadly force is appropriate to repair the situation, then yes, that's horrifying.

Dave

While I see your point (and may have responded a bit off-target to your earlier post), I tend to see cops as more of an Andy Griffith, rather than a Harry Callahan. Yes, they have police powers and the authority to exercise them, but basically we are on even footing. If the citizen taking control solves the problem, then fine. Problem solved. I prefer police to have the absolute least amount of power as is practical. That's what saves us from these cops that think they are soldiers and combatants in enemy territory.

I think that if a cop draws his weapon, he should have to face a review to actually prove his life was in danger. If he fails to do so, he loses his weapon. By such a standard (similar to the one the Camden NJ police have adopted), cops might not think of themselves as Special Forces.

 

[erlando]

While I see your point (and may have responded a bit off-target to your earlier post), I tend to see cops as more of an Andy Griffith, rather than a Harry Callahan. Yes, they have police powers and the authority to exercise them, but basically we are on even footing. If the citizen taking control solves the problem, then fine. Problem solved. I prefer police to have the absolute least amount of power as is practical. That's what saves us from these cops that think they are soldiers and combatants in enemy territory.

Problem is that the overwhelming evidence points to that cops tend to see themselves as Harry Calahan...

 

[Bob001]

Killer cops turned off and took off their bodycams.

All five Memphis Police officers charged in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols failed to capture the entire encounter on their body-worn cameras, and three of the five fully removed their body-worn cameras during the still-active scene, according to newly-released police documents obtained by Insider.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-officers-charged-tyre-nichols-024558939.html

 

[erlando]

Killer cops turned off and took off their bodycams.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-officers-charged-tyre-nichols-024558939.html

Turning off body cams should carry heavy penalties. A cop should be responsible for their bodycam being on and running at any time they are performing their duty. No excuses.

 

[bruto]

Turning off body cams should carry heavy penalties. A cop should be responsible for their bodycam being on and running at any time they are performing their duty. No excuses.

It should be prima facie evidence of intent to commit a crime, as much as pulling down your pants would be if you were suspected of rape.

 

[plague311]

Turning off body cams should carry heavy penalties. A cop should be responsible for their bodycam being on and running at any time they are performing their duty. No excuses.

I don't really understand why they have the ability to be turned off at all. Being removed should be grounds for punishment for sure. I can't imagine a scenario where a cop would be required to remove his camera. Like you said, no excuses.

 

[Darat]

I don't really understand why they have the ability to be turned off at all. Being removed should be grounds for punishment for sure. I can't imagine a scenario where a cop would be required to remove his camera. Like you said, no excuses.

Break time?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I mean cops gotta pee and stuff.

 

[autumn1971]

I mean cops gotta pee and stuff.

How often is your torso pointed at your junk when you pee?
Scoliosis that severe I would think prevents one from being a cop

 

[Aridas]

I mean cops gotta pee and stuff.

Cameras running in bathrooms, in general, is going into problematic territory, regardless, yes, and is mostly illegal in a number of states. Beyond that, camera problems are a thing, I'm pretty sure, and shouldn't be held against a cop.

Cameras ceasing function for whatever reason right before nastiness occurred, though, absolutely should be held against a cop.

 

[Thermal]

What's the worst that can happen by peeing with a body cam on? A video of the top of a urinal? Maybe the view of the back of a stall door, with some unflattering audio?

These guys kill. I think the minor privacy intrusion is pretty trivial.

ETA: when interacting with people, cams on and no excuses. Off is willful destruction of evidence, among other crimes.

 

[Bob001]

I mean cops gotta pee and stuff.

They might also want to talk to witnesses and victims and informants who don't want to be recorded. There's also the practical problem of massive data storage. But there shouldn't be any question that an arrest and everything preceding it from the first moment of the encounter should be on tape.

 

[bruto]

They might also want to talk to witnesses and victims and informants who don't want to be recorded. There's also the practical problem of massive data storage. But there shouldn't be any question that an arrest and everything preceding it from the first moment of the encounter should be on tape.

In such circumstances, such as interviewing an informant, or going to the bathroom, it seems trivially obvious that an announcement could be made of the event. Really, how hard would it be for a cop to say "I'm turning off my body cam for the moment, in order to...."